"But thanks to everyone who displayed their deep unseriousness about this election by participating in this smear. It will be remembered."

I'm atremble, but armed. And, well... what "smear?" That's John Kerry's big foot in his own big mouth... assuming that's all it is. Kudos to those who noticed the discrepancy. Isn't that a talent useful for intelligence work?

By the way, were there any swiftboat missions into Cambodia, as far as we know? Kerry seems to imply that there were lots of them, but if that's so they were far more "secret" than the helicopter missions, which are documented (according to Hugh Hewitt's Nexus research). And none of the people in Kerry's chain of command seem to remember any swiftboat missions into Cambodia. So are we stepping over the line if we're skeptical of the story? Wouldn't someone someplace in the chain of command remember even one swiftboat mission into Cambodia? Just one?

Andrew, this post has been bothering me for days.

Part of what bothers me is the remark about "desperately partisan" posting on the Left, as though there isn't a lot of shrill hysteria on the Right these days.

There's passion and commitment on both sides and it doesn't always make sense to the other half of the political spectrum. (I've always read blogs from both sides of the spectrum but I'm finding it harder and harder to read the blogs of people who have decided to support Bush. It's like, having once made a decision, they decide to abandon critical thought and become hysterically defensive. That's how it reads to me, anyhow. Just to give you a feel for how the "partisan" issue looks from my side of the fence.)

Look at your own words. I would never have believed, six months ago, that I'd be reading about someone throwing their support to a candidate whose domestic policies they disapproved of, whose approach to government they did not agree with, and whose handling of the "war" they found themselves forced to interpret as "a deliberate strategy to anger opponents and create the impression of incompetence" and the rest of the things you said.

It's a mystery to me how anyone could rationally cast such a vote. (And yet, I've never thought of you as a wingnut or as being irrational, and I don't intend to start thinking of you that way now.)

In fact, the only solid reason you're giving for voting for Bush is that he "seems" to have the right idea in terms of making war. If, after 3-1/2 years of his presidency, you still don't know if he knows what he's doing, doesn't that furnish you with a clue about whether or not he actually does?

Let's leave all of that aside for the moment and tell me, if you can, some actually good reason for voting for Bush.

I am, for instance, quite honestly, very disturbed by the implicit assumption in your post that domestic matters are just amazingly less important to the future of this country than making war.

I can't figure out if your position is tied up in some "conservative" belief that "defense" should be the primary function of the federal government or where you're actually coming from with this decision.

I've been puzzling over it, so I thought I'd just come back and ask you. :)